G 0003/93 (Priority interval) vom 16.08.1994

Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator

ECLI:EP:BA:1994:G000393.19940816

Datum der Entscheidung

16. August 1994

Aktenzeichen

G 0003/93

Antrag auf Überprüfung von

Anmeldenummer

IPC-Klasse

Verfahrenssprache

Englisch

Verteilung

Im Amtsblatt des EPA veröffentlicht (A)

Download

Entscheidung auf Englisch

Amtsblattfassungen

Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte

Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung

Bezeichnung der Anmeldung

Name des Antragstellers

Name des Einsprechenden

Kammer

Leitsatz

1. A document published during the priority interval, the technical contents of which correspond to that of the priority document, constitutes prior art citable under Article 54(2) EPC against a European patent application claiming that priority, to the extent such priority is not validly claimed.

2. This also applies if a claim to priority is invalid due to the fact that the priority document and the subsequent European application do not concern the same invention because the European application claims subject-matter not disclosed in the priority document.

Relevante Rechtsnormen

European Patent Convention Art 54(2) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 87 1973 European Patent Convention Art 88 1973 European Patent Convention Art 89 1973

Schlagwörter

Priority - document published during the priority interval
State of the art - document published during the priority interval
Invalid priority - different invention
Obiter dictum - admissibility of the referral

Orientierungssatz

Zitierte Akten

Zitierende Akten

G 0002/98 G 0001/02 G 0002/02 G 0003/02 G 0003/08 G 0001/15 G 0003/19 G 0001/22 G 0002/22 T 0594/90 T 0961/90 T 0105/91 T 0189/91 T 0127/92 T 0293/92 T 0893/92 T 1054/92 T 0441/93 T 1052/93 T 1056/93 T 0178/94 T 0552/94 T 0816/94 T 0051/95 T 0136/95 T 0377/95 T 0560/95 T 0131/99 T 0507/99 T 0998/99 T 1084/99 T 0015/01 T 0910/06 T 1459/06 T 0680/08 T 2332/08 T 0577/11 T 1222/11 T 0557/13 T 0951/20 T 1171/20 T 1286/23

Conclusion

For these reasons

the question of law referred to the Enlarged Board by the President of the EPO is to be answered as follows:

2. This also applies if a claim to priority is invalid due to the fact that the priority document, and the subsequent European application, do not concern the same invention because the European application claims subject-matter not disclosed in the priority document.